SOUTH-SOUTH TRADE AND NORTH-SOUTH TRADE FOR GROWTH AND PRODUCTIVITY: A CROSS-COUNTRY ANALYSIS FOR THE CIS COUNTRIES

Öz

This paper examines the impact of trade with various country groupings on both output and total factor productivity growth of Commonwealth of Independent States countries using the trade measures from the Eora multi-region input-output database for 1990-2013 period. Since the growth and productivity effects of various trade measures vary by several country groupings, this study evaluates the model for the developed countries (North), the developing countries (South), the Commonwealth of Independent States countries (South), the Organization of Islamic Countries (South) and the European Union countries (North) sequentially. Regarding the potential of the Commonwealth of Independent States countries for sustainable competition regionally and globally, this analysis is a worthwhile endeavor to guide the policy makers for future trade collaborations. Moreover, since the Commonwealth of Independent States countries are among the South countries, this study mainly enables the comparison of North-South trade with South-South trade and their effects on output and total factor productivity growth. The most significant result of this analysis is that the Commonwealth of Independent States countries gain more from trade with the South countries in terms of positive output and total factor productivity growth. While the exports of Commonwealth of Independent States countries to all country groups have a positive effect, imports from the North countries for the Commonwealth of Independent States have a negative effect on both income and total factor productivity. Estimates of the effects of trade on growth (both exports and imports) are supported by estimates of the effects on total factor productivity, regardless of the econometric forecast method.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CIS countries
• Developed countries
• Developing countries
• Eora MRIO
• OIC countries
• North-South trade
• South-South trade
• Trade flows
• Growth
• Total factor productivity

BÜYÜME VE VERİMLİLİK İÇİN GÜNEY-GÜNEY TİCARETİ VE KUZEY-GÜNEY TİCARETİ: BDT ÜLKELERİ İÇİN AMPİRİK BİR ÇALIŞMA

Öz

Bu çalışmada Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğu’nun çeşitli ülke gruplarıyla yaptığı ticaretin hem ülke geliri hem de toplam faktör verimliliği üzerine etkisi Eora MRIO veri tabanındaki ticaret göstergelerinden faydalanı-larak 1990-2013 yılları için tahmin edilmiştir. Çeşitli gelir düzeyindeki ülke gruplarıyla yapılan ticaretin gelir ve verimlilik üzerindeki etkilerinin farklılaşacağını dikkate alan bu çalışma, gelişmiş ülkeler (Kuzey), gelişmekte olan ülkeler (Güney), Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğu ülkeleri (Güney), İslam İşbirliği Teşkilatı ülkeleri (Güney) ve Avrupa Birliği ülkeleri (Kuzey) ile yapılan ticareti sırasıyla modele dahil etmiştir. Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğu ülkelerinin hem bölgede hem de küresel dünyada sürdürülebilir rekabet açısından sahip olduğu potansiyel dikkate alındığında, bu çalışma bir yönüyle ileriye dönük ticari işbirlikleri açısından politika yapıcılara fikir verecektir. Ayrıca, Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğu ülkeleri de Güney ülkeleri grubunda oldukları için, bu çalışma Kuzey-Güney ticaretini ve Güney-Güney ticaretini gelir ve verimlilik etkileri yönüyle kıyaslama imkanı sunmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın en ilginç sonucu Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğu ülkelerinin diğer Güney ülkeleri ile yaptığı ticaretin gelir ve verimlik etkileri yönüyle daha fazla pozitif etkisinin olmasıdır. Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğu ülkelerinin bütün ülke gruplarına yaptığı ihracatın olumlu etkisi varken, Bağımsız Devletler Topluluğu ülkeleri için Kuzey ülkelerinden yaptığı ithalat hem gelir üzerinde hem de toplam faktör verimliliği üzerinde negatif bir etki göstermektedir. Ticaretin büyüme üzerindeki etkileriyle (hem ihracat hem ithalat) ilgili tahminler, ekonometrik tahmin yöntemi fark etmeksizin toplam faktör verimliliği üzerindeki etkilerinin tahminleriyle desteklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• BDT ülkeleri
• Gelişmiş ülkeler
• Gelişmekte olan ülkeler
• Eora MRIO
• İİT ülkeleri
• Kuzey-Güney ticareti
• Güney-Güney Ticareti
• Ticaret akışları
• Büyüme
• Toplam faktör verimliliği

Kaynakça

1. Afonso, O., & Alves, R.H. (2008). Can the North-South Trade Regime Explain Intra and Inter-Country Productivity Differences? The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 17 (4), 561-595.
2. Amsden, A. (1987). The Directionality of Trade: Historical Perspective and Overview. In O. Havrylyshyn (ed.). Exports of Developing Countries: How Direction Affects Performance (pp. 123-138). Washington, D.C: World Bank.
3. Athukorala, P.-C., & Nasir, S. (2012). Global Production Sharing and South-South Trade, Indian Growth and Development Review, 5(2), 173-202.
4. Baliamoune-Lutz, M. (2011). Growth by Destination (Where You Export Matters?): Trade with China and Growth in African Countries. African Development Review, 23 (2), 202-218.
5. Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R., Timmer, M.P. (2015). The Next Generation of the Penn World Table. American Economic Review, 105 (10), 3150-3182.
6. Frankel, J.A., & Romer, D. (1999). Does Trade Cause Growth? American Economic Review, 89 (3), 379–399.
7. Freinkman, L., Polyakov, E., Revenco, C. (2004). Trade Performance and Regional Integration of the CIS Countries. World Bank Working Paper No: 38. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/996141468779704440/Trade-performance-and-regional-integration-of-the-CIS-countries (Date of Access: 25.02.2017).
8. Gilbert, J., Beladi, H., Oladi, R. (2015). North-South Trade Liberalization and Economic Welfare. Review of Development Economics, 19 (4), 1006-1017.

9. Hazarika, G., & Otero, R. (2011). North-South Trade Liberalization and Returns to Skill in the South: The Case of Mexico. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 20 (4), 449-465.
10. Irwin, D.A., & Terviö, M. (2002). Does Trade Raise Income? Evidence from the Twentieth Century. Journal of International Economics, 58 (1), 1–18.
11. Jenish, N. (2013). Regional Trade and Economic Growth in the CIS Region. Institute of Public Policy and Administration (University of Central Asia) Working Paper No: 13. Retrieved from https://ucentralasia.org/Publications/Item/536 (Date of Access: 25.02.2017).
12. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220-246.
13. Kaya, V., & Huseyni, I. (2015). The Sectoral Structure of Export and Its Impact on Economic Growth with Respect to the Distribution on Countries: The Case of Turkey. Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 29 (4), 749-773.
14. Lall, S. (1987). India’s Economic Relations with the South. In O. Havrylyshyn (ed.). Exports of Developing Countries: How Direction Affects Performance (pp. 109-122). Washington, D.C: World Bank.
15. Lenzen, M., Kanemoto, K., Moran, D., Geschke, A. (2012). Mapping the Structure of the World Economy. Environmental Science & Technology, 46 (15), 8374-8381.
16. Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Geschke, A. (2013). Building Eora: A Global Multi-Region Input-Output Database at High Country and Sector Resolution. Economic Systems Research, 25 (1), 20-49.
17. Lewis, W.A. (1980). The Slowing Down of the Engine of Growth. American Economic Review, 70 (4), 555-564.
18. Michalopoulos, C., & Tarr, D. (1997). The Economics of Customs Unions in the Commonwealth of Independent States, Post-soviet Geography and Economics, 38 (3), 125-143.
19. Mullings, R., & Mahabir, A. (2018). Growth by Destination: The Role of Trade in Africa’s Recent Growth Episode. World Development, 102, 243-261.
20. Myrdal, G. (1956). An International Economy, Problems and Prospects. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 381.
21. Schiff, M., & Wang, Y. (2008). North-South and South-South Trade-Related Technology Diffusion: How Important are They in Improving TFP Growth? Journal of Development Studies, 44 (1), 49-59.
22. South-South Cooperation Report (2017). Changing Roles of South-South Cooperation in Global Development System: Towards 2030. Finance Center for South-South Cooperation (FCSSC). Retrieved from https://www.unsouthsouth.org/2017/10/10/changing-roles-of-south-south-cooperation-in-the-global-development-system-towards-2030-fcssc-2017/ (Date of Access: 25.02.2018).
23. Tavadyan, A., Safaryan, A., Demidenko, M. (2013). Armenia and the Customs Union: Impact of Economic Integration. Eurasian Development Bank Centre for Integration Studies Report 20. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2831940 (Date of Access: 21.11.2018).
24. Tochitskaya, I., & Aksen, E. (2004). Economic Effects of Belarus’ Participation in the CIS Countries Customs Union. EERC Working Paper Series 00/443E. Retrieved from http://eercnetwork.com/paper?page=27 (Date of Access: 21.11.2018).
25. UNCTAD (2015). Global Value Chains and South-South Trade. Economic Cooperation and Integration among Developing Countries (ECIDC), UNCTAD. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=1440 (Date of Access: 22.11.2018).
26. UNIDO (2006). Industrial Development, Trade and Poverty Reduction through South-South Cooperation, The United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Retrieved from https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2013-02/industrial_development_south_south_cooperation_0.pdf (Date of Access: 22.11.2018).
27. Van de Klundert, T., & Smulders, S. (1996). North-South Knowledge Spillovers and Competition: Convergence versus Divergence. Journal of Development Economics, 50 (2), 213-232.
28. Wacziarg, R., & Welch, K.H. (2008). Trade Liberalization and Growth: New Evidence. World Bank Economic Review, 22 (2), 187–231.
29. World Bank (2017), World Development Indicators (version date: 1 February 2017); available at http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators (Date of Access: 08.03.2017).
30. WTO (2018). World Trade Statistical Review 2018, World Trade Organization. Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2018_e/wts18_toc_e.htm (Date of Access: 22.11.2018).
31. Yanikkaya, H. (2003). Trade Openness and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Investigation. Journal of Development Economics, 72 (1), 57–89.